-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update ESMF from spack-stack fork: fix netcdf static libs and variant combinations #39738
Merged
scheibelp
merged 3 commits into
spack:develop
from
climbfuji:feature/update_esmf_from_spack_stack
Sep 20, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see this variant being passed to the build process. Am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a workaround for the fact that in modules.yaml, spack doesn't distinguish between, say, "@1.2.3" and "@1.2.3b09". I discussed this at some length with Todd once upon a time and there wasn't really another good solution. So this is essentially a dummy variant that let's us distinguish ESMF's "b??" subversions when we customize the modulefile names of one of our dependencies (MAPL).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One question to consider - and I do not know the answer - is how much longer will anything depend on a specific snapshot tag like v8.3.0b09? I think it was unfortunate that some models started depending on that specific snapshot tag, but hopefully that is a thing of the past now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I was the one to make this decision, I would say that any submitted ufs-weather-model code must use an official release of ESMF. But as long as UFS WM developers want to test with a beta snapshot (and have the mapl dependency be built with it, too), and spack(-stack) is used to install that version, this code needs to stay.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's ok of course to leave this out of mainline spack and keep that "feature" in our fork, just one more difference to carry around.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @climbfuji for clarifying. I have no issue with this "feature" moving into the mainline spack ESMF package. Generally I think the fewer differences between your fork and the mainline, the better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't want to hold up the PR on this but would like to understand the notion better: the module file should be able to access the version of dependencies (e.g.
8.3.0b09
). I can see how you might not want to alter all module file names just to account for this.That being said I think this variant could be named more-clearly, like:
And furthermore if it's a dummy variant which derives from the version, it might also be useful to encode a conflict
admittedly this would be difficult to encode given that we don't support
not
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do have
require
come to think of it, so you can do